linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/2] z3fold fixes

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAMJBoFNDw6gpnxrk35o9OW4qLJ87RHDfbYzhA9fqWr9WnuTVWw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Sun, 18 Dec 2016 09:15:09 +0100
From:   Vitaly Wool <vitalywool@...il.com>
To:     Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:     Dan Streetman <ddstreet@...e.org>, Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
        Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] z3fold fixes

On Tue, Nov 29, 2016 at 11:39 PM, Andrew Morton
<akpm@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
> On Tue, 29 Nov 2016 17:33:19 -0500 Dan Streetman <ddstreet@...e.org> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, Nov 26, 2016 at 2:15 PM, Vitaly Wool <vitalywool@...il.com> wrote:
>> > Here come 2 patches with z3fold fixes for chunks counting and locking. As commit 50a50d2 ("z3fold: don't fail kernel build is z3fold_header is too big") was NAK'ed [1], I would suggest that we removed that one and the next z3fold commit cc1e9c8 ("z3fold: discourage use of pages that weren't compacted") and applied the coming 2 instead.
>>
>> Instead of adding these onto all the previous ones, could you redo the
>> entire z3fold series?  I think it'll be simpler to review the series
>> all at once and that would remove some of the stuff from previous
>> patches that shouldn't be there.
>>
>> If that's ok with Andrew, of course, but I don't think any of the
>> z3fold patches have been pushed to Linus yet.
>
> Sounds good to me.  I had a few surprise rejects when merging these
> two, which indicates that things might be out of sync.
>
> I presently have:
>
> z3fold-limit-first_num-to-the-actual-range-of-possible-buddy-indexes.patch
> z3fold-make-pages_nr-atomic.patch
> z3fold-extend-compaction-function.patch
> z3fold-use-per-page-spinlock.patch
> z3fold-discourage-use-of-pages-that-werent-compacted.patch
> z3fold-fix-header-size-related-issues.patch
> z3fold-fix-locking-issues.patch

My initial suggestion was to have it the following way:
z3fold-limit-first_num-to-the-actual-range-of-possible-buddy-indexes.patch
z3fold-make-pages_nr-atomic.patch
z3fold-extend-compaction-function.patch
z3fold-use-per-page-spinlock.patch
z3fold-fix-header-size-related-issues.patch
z3fold-fix-locking-issues.patch

I would prefer to keep the fix-XXX patches separate since e. g.
z3fold-fix-header-size-related-issues.patch concerns also the problems
that have been in the code for a while now. I am ok with folding these
into the relevant main patches but once again, given that some fixes
are related to the code that is already merged, I don't see why it
would be better.

~vitaly